Gun Control

[huskerfan2000]

Are you advocating we should limit the First Amendment (person's abiility to watch violence), but not the Second Amendment (persons ability to own a device designed to kill)?

First off you don't have a first amendment right to watch television (do you also believe you have a first amendment right to drive cars, those are pretty heavily restricted?). Second, Nope, not advocating for that at all. I am advocating for making it much harder for kids to come into contact with it. Showing less graphic violence in movies/on TV does not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. it does control what is sent out over the airways, though.

Corporations like news agencies, or production companies should be held to a higher standard. Oh and STOP killing our unborn babies!

 

[huskerfan2000]

Question: How many of HuskerBoard users here have been exposed to violent media? I'd guess pretty much all of us. How many of us have went on killing sprees? I'd guess none of us.

Psychological research deems a relationship causal if there's random assignment of individuals by the researcher before manipulating the independent variable while controlling for all possible confounds. The problem with this line of research is that it is so riddled with confounds that obfuscate any link between violent media and violent behavior. There can't possibly be a causal link between violent media and violent behavior because there are so many non-violent consumers of violent media. So there's more than likely a very very very very very very very very very specific subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup individuals for whom we can say violent media causes violent behavior--we're likely to never find that subgroup of individuals.

So is censoring violent media a practical way of reducing mass shootings. I highly doubt it, and violent media research doesn't bolster the argument.

Come one now, you are way smarter than this (see first bold). To the second bold - I never said we should do this just for mass shootings, but for violence in general, to help curb all violence.

It is funny, people are complaining about my suggestion infringing on there right to violence, but yet have no problem infringing on the rights of gun owners. I guess my suggestion hit closer to home for some than further gun control does.

Well first of all, nobody has a right to violence. That's against the law.

Second of all, how does more stringent regulations regarding "weapons capable of killing many many people" infringe on the rights of gun owners. And why should I, as a non gun owner allow my rights to be trampled on in favor of gun owner rights?

You yourself said you don't have a right to violence, so what right are you referring to?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't know if this has ever been pointed out before. But, as the level of violence in our media has gone up, the level of violent crimes in our society has gone down.

 

[ZRod]

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/20/habitual-drunk-driver-head-on-crash-killed/

Habitual drunk driver causes head-on crash, killed instantly

Even after all the laws and taking away this persons DL, this person STILL found a way to drive and get into a wreck. This time he was the one killed instead of an innocent driver.

You're building strawmen. We have laws in place to deterred and punish drunk driving? We barely have squat in place for guns, and most of them are barely enforced because special interest are undercutting the agency responsible for enforcement.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

NRA actively worked to weaken gun law enforcement

A review of congressional legislative records, federal lobbying disclosure forms, as well as interviews with former ATF agents, shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation's gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce current laws, including:

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.

The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department's appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act. Most recently introduced in 2011, the bill proposed changing several regulations, including redefining the burden of proof for agents investigating firearms dealers accused of selling to prohibited individuals and capping fines for other violations.

 

[JJ Husker]

Are you advocating we should limit the First Amendment (person's abiility to watch violence), but not the Second Amendment (persons ability to own a device designed to kill)?

First off you don't have a first amendment right to watch television (do you also believe you have a first amendment right to drive cars, those are pretty heavily restricted?). Second, Nope, not advocating for that at all. I am advocating for making it much harder for kids to come into contact with it. Showing less graphic violence in movies/on TV does not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. it does control what is sent out over the airways, though.

Corporations like news agencies, or production companies should be held to a higher standard. Oh and STOP killing our unborn babies!

So, we can further regulate the content of television and movie productions without infringing on free speech (1st amendment) rights but we cannot further regulate guns in any way, shape or form because that would infringe on the 2nd amendment? Is this what you are saying?

What about books that contain violence? Do we regulate the words contained in those too or just burn them?

BTW- I am NOT for most gun control measures that get proposed (even though that does not fit the narrative you choose to use for me or anyone who does not subscribe to an antiquated wild west vision of gun ownership). However, I am for doing a much better and more logical and thorough job of vetting potential gun owners and making it extremely difficult for the wrong persons to acquire guns, especially guns that are designed for little more than high speed and efficient killing. But, if I want a weapon like an AR-15 for personal protection and I pass all the checks and am properly trained and licensed, then yes, I believe as a citizen of the US that I should be able to own one. We (the government) regulate all kinds of things that are covered by the Bill of Rights, why can't we adopt sensible legislation to help regulate guns?

 

[JJ Husker]

I don't know if this has ever been pointed out before. But, as the level of violence in our media has gone up, the level of violent crimes in our society has gone down.

It has been pointed out about 42 times in this thread alone but we can't let facts get in the way. It is being ignored because it doesn't fit somebody's position on the subject. I'm surprised somebody hasn't proposed that we not allow facts like these to be presented.

 

[knapplc]

EDIT - I missed some of the thread. Nevermind.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Question: How many of HuskerBoard users here have been exposed to violent media? I'd guess pretty much all of us. How many of us have went on killing sprees? I'd guess none of us.

Psychological research deems a relationship causal if there's random assignment of individuals by the researcher before manipulating the independent variable while controlling for all possible confounds. The problem with this line of research is that it is so riddled with confounds that obfuscate any link between violent media and violent behavior. There can't possibly be a causal link between violent media and violent behavior because there are so many non-violent consumers of violent media. So there's more than likely a very very very very very very very very very specific subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup individuals for whom we can say violent media causes violent behavior--we're likely to never find that subgroup of individuals.

So is censoring violent media a practical way of reducing mass shootings. I highly doubt it, and violent media research doesn't bolster the argument.

Come one now, you are way smarter than this (see first bold). To the second bold - I never said we should do this just for mass shootings, but for violence in general, to help curb all violence.

It is funny, people are complaining about my suggestion infringing on there right to violence, but yet have no problem infringing on the rights of gun owners. I guess my suggestion hit closer to home for some than further gun control does.

Well first of all, nobody has a right to violence. That's against the law.

Second of all, how does more stringent regulations regarding "weapons capable of killing many many people" infringe on the rights of gun owners. And why should I, as a non gun owner allow my rights to be trampled on in favor of gun owner rights?

You yourself said you don't have a right to violence, so what right are you referring to?

I'll just bold your words for you.

 

[ZRod]

Are you advocating we should limit the First Amendment (person's abiility to watch violence), but not the Second Amendment (persons ability to own a device designed to kill)?

First off you don't have a first amendment right to watch television (do you also believe you have a first amendment right to drive cars, those are pretty heavily restricted?). Second, Nope, not advocating for that at all. I am advocating for making it much harder for kids to come into contact with it. Showing less graphic violence in movies/on TV does not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. it does control what is sent out over the airways, though.

Corporations like news agencies, or production companies should be held to a higher standard. Oh and STOP killing our unborn babies!

So, we can further regulate the content of television and movie productions without infringing on free speech (1st amendment) rights but we cannot further regulate guns in any way, shape or form because that would infringe on the 2nd amendment? Is this what you are saying?

What about books that contain violence? Do we regulate the words contained in those too or just burn them?

BTW- I am NOT for most gun control measures that get proposed (even though that does not fit the narrative you choose to use for me or anyone who does not subscribe to an antiquated wild west vision of gun ownership). However, I am for doing a much better and more logical and thorough job of vetting potential gun owners and making it extremely difficult for the wrong persons to acquire guns, especially guns that are designed for little more than high speed and efficient killing. But, if I want a weapon like an AR-15 for personal protection and I pass all the checks and am properly trained and licensed, then yes, I believe as a citizen of the US that I should be able to own one. We (the government) regulate all kinds of things that are covered by the Bill of Rights, why can't we adopt sensible legislation to help regulate guns?

JJ you missed the most important point he made. We should be holding corporations to a higher standard. So we should probably hold them accountable too (they're people too). So... we should hold them responsible5for gun deaths.

 

[Enhance]

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/20/habitual-drunk-driver-head-on-crash-killed/

Habitual drunk driver causes head-on crash, killed instantly
Even after all the laws and taking away this persons DL, this person STILL found a way to drive and get into a wreck. This time he was the one killed instead of an innocent driver.

So, we should just get rid of all laws because people are going to break them anyways.

You continue to push this narrative without any real justification. Laws are not in place to save every life or prevent every crime - they're put in place to minimize risk and hold people accountable. So, what's your point?

Your only suggestion to saving lives so far has been limiting children's access to media violence, an argument that has now been shredded by the fact that 1) violent crime has gone down since the 80's and 2) no causal link has ever been established between media and violence. At best, there is a correlation, which is NOT the same as causality.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Very interesting article on the Gun Control vote, NRA and what real power Trump has.

 

[HuskerShark]

Very interesting article on the Gun Control vote, NRA and what real power Trump has.

The man isn't even President yet. Not to mention, you expect him to convince the NRA to budge in 1 meeting? That's super unrealistic, don't you think?... If anything, he ought to get some props as a dedicated gun rights supporter for being open-minded enough to consider restrictions which so many people on this board have been arguing for.

 

[JJ Husker]

This has probably already mentioned somewhere among the discussion of gun control on HB but it helped shed a little light on the power of the NRA for me when it was pointed out on This Week with John Oliver recently.

The NRA only has about 5 million members and they have only one singular focus, to defeat all gun control measures. Period. They have no interest in helping to develop reasonable measures or anything other than the defeat of anything that would begin to control guns. All they have to do is say No. It makes their lobbying job easier than any other.

Anyway, I found that to be true and somewhat enlightening.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Very interesting article on the Gun Control vote, NRA and what real power Trump has.

The man isn't even President yet. Not to mention, you expect him to convince the NRA to budge in 1 meeting? That's super unrealistic, don't you think?... If anything, he ought to get some props as a dedicated gun rights supporter for being open-minded enough to consider restrictions which so many people on this board have been arguing for.

Truth be told, I found this article hilarious due to the conversation I had at golf league last week. Being in central Nebraska I tend to just keep quiet about politics around my friends due to the fact most of them are the typical Republicans who are going to clammer onto what ever candidate they nominate.

Anyway, something came up about Trump. Going against my better judgement I just mentioned that there was no way in hell I was voting for him. The conversation went on with the other three about how THEY were voting for Trump because Hillary wants to take our guns away and that's how Hitler took over Germany and how Trump will fight for them. I just rolled my eyes and kept quiet from then on.

Well......then I read an article where he was in favor of the gun control legislation.

My sick and twisted sense of humor just went off the charts on that one.

It's just one example of how people get so caught up in all the crap in politics and they don't stop to actually think about what and who they are voting for.

PS....and yes....I was pleasantly surprised on his stance on this. Still won't vote for the idiot.

 

[JJ Husker]

Interesting article on Vox about the no fly list and the logistics of using it also as a no-gun list.

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865756/no-fly-list